tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 14, 2014 11:30pm-1:31am EST
sides with the corporate tax code but right now 35 percent is the highest tax rate but because there are so many loopholes we're not raising very much revenue. if you look at the framework that the chairman put together there is a lot of cover rise. and then to be more competitive but to increase the deficit. we think there should be
within that they all have wraparound coverage with a much simpler form of -- formula of the same deductible because the idea but there also have protection against catastrophic and then for most beneficiaries there is more details in the plan. unfortunately time is too short. so what we propose we know the pieces of tax reform
with the corporate and individual side. but nobody wants to go first. and then that goes with the to your suspenders but this package could never raise any betty's tax rates. but first increasing the support to what people already know. but to miss report the income. that gives time for that comprehensive tax reform.
said making it to the reform tax code. it would mess up the debt situation not a grant for again but to make that health care system with the tax code. there are few other opportunities out there. and it is the highway trust fund. there is a disparity of homage we're spending on highways. with gimmicks we're running out of pensions. and then to bring their
revenue and spending in line so that trust fund runs out of money at that point there is the across-the-board cut for the program. and then it is a huge mess opportunity. so even the next two years with that health reform is step one. to focus on that issue so thank you everyone. >> i will probably offend
everyone here. touche trent lott and the minutiae who have said up the institution. as staff director of the budget committee he was chairman you have the opportunity to look at this chart. this is not a joke. it is reality. you might remember the senator from pennsylvania got on the floor of the united states senate's and outlined what the hillary clinton health plan would look like.
what most of them don't realize is lee with that appropriations process and it is not with any particular wisdom that the members and their staff do not know how the process works. but 80 percent of the elected after the last four cycles almost that many in the senate and is intuitive we have two or three that worked on it. i blame him for most of this.
[laughter] so the first thing is the complexity of the process to talk to rataplan that various people have had. we will call it 3.zero but the plan has to be something that deals with the complexity how to get things done in the senate and in the house. also to come out with a series of recommendations to change the budget process itself. with that budget and control act it was a leadership committee in the house.
just like they do on the rules committee. we tried that one year in the senate with the chairman of the appropriations and though some of the budget and from what you could imagine happened led to the budget committee that you get stuck on new really did not want to be on this committee. so the composition of the budget committee could change and for example, with the use a nice word, of mass
, very few people have a dog in the fight most are not involved in the budget process we try to get it out sometime in april in america is 25 people in the united states senate and know what we're doing. we say what good boys we are. then they say what is this? one way is to put senior members is to put the least:number with the senate and house appropriations on a new budget committee.
and then as the budget is being formed with the jurisdiction of our committee. that is the early buying in to an exceptionally complex situation. and a lot of that stuff goes away. so the composition is extremely important. so the next important thing is from 1985 and the rest of the staff were compelled and senator graham and senator hollings and as part of the
loss street journal of was tepid. but talked-about the across-the-board cuts of sequester. here are the things it does not do. it is the prior ties programs. the f-16 is just as important as the f95. and it says the money we give usaid is just as effective as the bilateral basis. they're all cut equally across the board. that is a nice way this is
stupid way of managing so even to say this in a meeting last week but to say under the 2016 sequester caps under current law, the united states of america cannot meet the strategic defense needs. they were surprised by that statement. when asked by the moderator to you still mean it she said absolutely. the other person on the panel was a republican. we had a hearing from very
smart people to cut back to what end? to add an additional $1 trillion to the national debt after all these cuts. these are the smallest programs in the slowest growing programs so in full faith and i will balance the budget but they didn't realize that two-thirds of these decisions have already been made under the sequestered 90% of these decisions are made even before they come to office. so i will conclude by talking about the debt ceiling. i was very lucky. i could work for a man named howard baker and dictum and
itchy. no doubt in my mind to give congress the power to set the debt limit and use it as a hostage for other kinds of ideas is long past its usefulness. i believe very strongly we should not have the debt ceiling in the united states house and senate. they can use the budget process to get around that. in this not only me. there is enough -- the conservative government in australia that decided lee would involve their legislature. so they did. for two years. and that same conservative government said we're not
going to do this again. they removed that particular provision to allow them to set the debt ceiling. to meet that is like monetary policy. do you really want 535 people from various backgrounds across the nation setting monetary policy for this country that is a reserve country in though world -- currency in the world? so we believe in getting rid of the debt ceiling, the sequester caps, improving the composition so with the complexity of a process that you will find very interesting.
>> thank-you. i will talk about some of the things that i want to reiterate we have made some progress from the heights that it was over the last several years. that does private -- provide relief. people think maybe we can look at other things. but there is said need for the long term fiscal al looked. we're still on the unsustainable path that has been going up and the deficit will go up again soon. so we really don't have a mission accomplished it is time to do what we can but i
agree there probably is a grand bargain on the horizon i would love to see one in l.a. look forward to the diminished the and rivlin miramax three. sign me up. but not in the next few years. i spent time in iowa and new hampshire trying to raise the profile of the fiscal issues peaked says i do think it will be important in that regard. but that does not mean that there but we could certainly do some things in a bipartisan way that could help clear the deck for a
larger deal. and put cuts with the public trust that washington and can work to get something done. it is our intention from the highlight trust fund is a good example of the two sides to get together to have the deadline with the action event. to have a viable infrastructure in this country with the current revenue stream is not enough to pay for the expenditures. it is of fairly straightforward problem in that regard and should be at a long-range agreement with
that constant threat of people being laid off as the consequence of the highway trust fund. obviously the same is true with the sustainable growth rate that is another deadline with an opportunity to address that and hopefully both parties get close to an agreement on that. we also have to other things in the social security disability i think those are the two that get more into the longer term outlook they have to pass some funding
for next year and i fully endorse the ada to have them paid for i would start from scratch and only extend those that are able. it is an opportunity to scrap the tax code to let that expire. but to get into those issues with social security disability people tend to do is think social security though layoffs of the future they will go bankrupt wide we need to worry about that now? but for one thing it is running a cash deficit put
social security pays out more than it takes in right now and that situation will continue to get worse. but the disability portion that disability insurance is projected to run dry by the fall of 2016. interesting timing. what would happen if there wasn't any action? that would be 19 or 20%. so with some people's legislation affecting social security will affect congress. the question is, is it going
to be another kick sick and down the road shift from one into another or is it an opportunity to look at broader forms? but to extend the solvency of the entire system? remember it is a leading indicator. it is the demographics as an early indicator going off. so it would make sense and then people say it should be considered not as part of the grand bargain that something separate. we can do that. there is the opportunity to do that. that is one thing this is politically dicey with social security but getting
disability benefits by 19%? i don't think so. the other one i will mention is the estimate i feel like steve. with said debt reduction over 22 years so i take a backseat to nobody there should be that mechanism in place to help us control that. i don't think the current debt limit is the best way to do it. for one, and the number itself linked to any particular economics but the
actual figure is not that important. survival have selling as part of a gdp i'd like to have the debt limit to be linked to the gdp somehow. i think the penalties for reaching the debt limit should be tied to the policies that reduce the debt. if you are exceeding a targeted level of debt, the penalty should not be default on the government obligation to endanger the credit worthiness but do something that affects the policy. is a part of sequestration to involve taxes as well and tax expenditures and
sequestration. that would make the debt limit with a mechanism to be effective. but ultimately nobody is really willing to defaults on the debt. it isn't a deterrent going forward. using that in the past to get things done but looking at the time that has been passed for that i am not sure that will go forward because people are sick of the act but those that just wish it could work. and helps we could reduce
the opportunity of the trust fund to use the next couple of years as the way to set up and make progress so the next time around that we will love the failures to bring across a bigger deal. >> on october 1 of next year ryan was a partial relief of the sequestration starting fiscal year 2016 that comes back. there is another opportunity to replace those across the board with some more sensible long-term solutions
>> thank you for your insight. at this point will open to questions from the audience. c-span has a microphone. >> does anyone have any specials? >> there is a footnote with a more detailed description with the fast-track process? and need deal -- a deal with that looks like? mimic there are many ways and we will not endorse one bevy try a 2c which has the most viability. >> gao did a report earlier
this said the same things you said about the long term situation. by reaching those deficit numbers but you saw the deficit problem. i'd and novia of commons on that so what do you say to that? >> to be nominated as secretary of treasury my old boss pete domenici was with the finance committee he knows the numbers very, very well and is very smart. i think he recites the company line.
>> they were right when we were saying that. we shouldn't have been worried about the trillion dollar deficit. but the problem is still the longtime deficit in the same folks are bragging about this. so the long-term has been a similar unsustainable directory and that was before. >> i would just add that a lot of the reason this comes down to because the economy has been recovering, which is a policy where whatever you think of as to why it's doing it the way the administration is or not, the economy has been recovering from the great recession and it's a very normal recovery. the deficit, it's coming back down and it's been a slow recovery. but it's really the trajectory
going forward and that is the demographic and that makes it difficult to talk about because it does involve popular programs like social security and medicare that are going to get more expensive simply because there are more beneficiaries. even if health care costs and growth are the same and the light. it's still very expensive growth because of the number of beneficiaries. that is what puts revenues in play because we need to look at some better way as to whether the historic trends are looking like this here. so politically that leads to a discussion that neither republicans or democrats or republicans want to have. and a lot of this is different when it comes to the future and those are the things that we need to get at the long term.
>> we have to have a mandatory tax on discretionary spending for the next eight years and my program helps administer this. but even sequestration of size, we face de facto sequestration in terms of budget allocation and the only way we will get more discretionary spending is if people are willing to be honest and deal with addressing the growing cost and bringing
revenues for tax reform. it just seems that it will continue to be with our own national defense which is threatened. >> i agree absolutely that this is unsustainable and here is the problem and we were out 1.3 trillion and isn't that great. okay, the red 17.7 and we're going to be at 100% dependent upon the numbers you want to use and we're going to be out 100% of the gdp ratio in the lifetime of every single person who comes into this room. what has happened is the birth
of almost everyone in this room are the health programs. 1964 medicare. in medicaid and things like that. our inability to make changes to countries like sweden, we think of them as socialists, things that sweden has done, that norway has done, that other countries have done. we are not willing to do. they actually took money from beneficiaries and they say the next month you're getting 95. and so we can't say that we're getting $100, were supposed to get a hundred and $6, but were only getting 103. you have to think about this
because what we are also doing business and i proposed this, there's a famous guy at johns hopkins university who does immensely important cancer research. when the sequester hit a year and a half ago, he was asked to comment on that. and here is what he said. three years from now somebody's mother named sadie is going to die of cancer and it is a cancer that were working on right now, and that we probably could even care or put into remission i now if we didn't have the sequester. he's not a republican or a democrat. and when someone tells you that we won't be able to defend national defense interests, when others say that he recorded
either don't need to die because of the way we are handling the federal budget, you need to pay attention. i'm a grand bargainer. we are all grand bargainer us even though it's very unlikely and the fact that we agree is very unlikely and very depressing. >> congress came very close on this last year. there was a bit of concern about this and second that you were doing [inaudible] is part of the program and in fact, when we switched to this there was a complaint that now we are going to have to pay for this year. how is this an opportunity for
long-term deficit when you're talking about perman raphael on something you'll have to pay for for 10 years. >> that's a good question. and i do think that that is an excellent starting point and there are areas where we can move further to better promote value, there are certain areas and i'm not going to pick on anyone, but certain types of physicians and i would personally go further because i think it's a good starting point. the problem is that we don't have yet a plan to pay for it. soap basically it has happened indirectly and it hasn't worked keep costs down. it's actually increased the is and what it's done is forced this to replace this and sometimes they are bad, sometimes they are good and sometimes it's really helpful. rather than take the one year of
reverse cuts, it includes tenures of cuts itself, which is way better, and there's 25 billion dollars in cuts and we are increasing the deficit. tenure is over tenures, it's better and i would hope that we pay for it and it actually helps to been the health care. there's an incredible amount of work that we can do. you can make a provider incentive and a beneficiary incentive to make everyone better at controlling health care costs and that will help within the decade may be just enough to help and over the running to be really helpful with the overall trajectory of health care spending health care spending in a way that's far better than the current one is.
>> thank you. [inaudible question] >> okay, it seems like there's been a lot of people in this room and you can solve the problem and the numbers are there and obviously there's going to be room on the edges. and he will try to come together to fix a political problem. going to talk about using some of these short-term solutions to get people to come up with local solutions. can you give an example of what you envision that took like? >> i think that it is an excellent question and i think that's particularly in the senate everyone is trying to figure out how they're going to
play it and i think the white house is as well. but if you had to pick one, i would say an agreement and the leader mcconnell says that he wants us reform, but no one has actually agreed to do it. with a green, we're going to work together to do tax reform and i think that small and it's a little branch. but i think it's an important first step. >> if i was going to give one piece of advice to the president of the united states, and he doesn't want to hear, but i'm going to say it anyway, it would be that with the budget for next year, make it a budget that balances within a three-year timeframe. and so there are people probably to the left and the right of me that would say oh, the old man has gone out of his mind.
okay. >> i wouldn't say that. [laughter] >> are you good at mind reading? [laughter] >> but getting this down to 18% of gdp moves no one other than "the wall street journal" and financial times, i have not enough on the front page of a newspaper, whether it's the albuquerque journal or other newspapers. they look at something called a balanced budget and if i were the president i would like what needs to be written and i would make recommendations to increase revenues and at some point you're going to have to realize that you don't have enough money to pay for the promises. and this includes to a balanced
budget. and the only way that we were able to do this sense was because ronald reagan said his people that i really don't care about the rest of the staff. one a tax bill passed. i have seen the letter that reagan wrote to bob dole saying that this is what we need in tax reform. the only way that you have a balanced budget in 1998 and 1999 is because bill clinton listen to someone who have a lot of market sense and he said that, mr. president, no one cares about this rates or markets and it's going to eat us alive if we don't do it. and to his absolute credit, over many months of painful negotiations of which i have some scar tissue, he came to an agreement that we needed a balanced budget.
people remember two things about this, first, i won't mention the first. but the other one is a balanced budget. so if i wanted to get a grand bargain, i wouldn't wait for 535 people to get together and do it. i would say this is the lamb going out. it costs us much money, 19.9% of gdp. going to do this for medicare and medicaid and we will get the same reaction that bill clinton got from the late daniel patrick moynihan which is what in heck are you doing when you signed this welfare work home bill. the welfare reform bill. if you don't have the guy that has to do it or the gal that has to do it, and put their
political standing on the line, you can't expect people to say who will charge this and you have to have a certain trumpet and somebody has step up and say , we have a balanced budget. >> i know what i would like is a budget resolution. a nice and old-fashioned budget resolution that the house and senate passed and negotiate and pass a joint resolution with but that would set that discretionary spending levels and then i would hope that's not asking too much to take that and
go to the traditional appropriations process and actually pass the appropriations bills. and then you could have targets for tax reform or maybe health care reform or something like that. you could make some assumptions about spending. you could really deal with a lot of the problems or at least that is the groundwork for dealing with it or maybe even putting something about the debt limit into the budget resolution and that would be really nice if i could do that. of course, the president is not involved in that, perhaps the president will put out a balanced budget and congress can work with that on but budget resolution. but it's not that everything would be solved with the buzz budget resolution. it would be one that would be widely ignored as it happens. but i think that that would be a really good thing to try to get
a lot of this stuff in place. >> it looks like we are just about out of time and i want to thank everyone for coming and i would like to thank the panelist for taking time to talk with us as well. [applause] >> if you have any additional questions for our panelist, shoot me an e-mail and we hope that those of you who think that your bosses would be interested in tackling any charges next year, please don't hesitate and let us know how we can help. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up next on c-span2, the supreme court hears oral arguments in the separation of
powers case and after that a house hearing on energy development and security issues in africa. later we will have a town hall discussion on how the media covered the ferguson, missouri police shooting. >> here are a few of the comments we have recently received from our viewers. >> i watched c-span2 and 3 and i am so pleased with the programming, especially the history aspect and i just saw real america, a short clip, where jfk gives a speech in berlin and i enjoyed the history programs were the cameras go in and one can see the actual thing
being conducted. i have always found that to be wonderful. i enjoy when they went to colorado springs and we heard them talk about the garden of the gods and pikes peak. so once again, please keep up the good work and c-span was the only good that came out of the congressional recess because that meant that you put on a book discussion and the history. i wasn't prepared to remember the names of the actual program. but please keep up the great work and thank you. >> i'm calling to comment on the america center for progress
presentation tonight from the secretary of health and human services. and i'm really upset about that because i would like c-span2 also have a panel with those that have a different impression of the aca and this may be the same policy act that they did initially with presenting this material to us and they have assumed that we are so dumb that we can't get the details as he said. but we can sense when there's something deceptive and sleazy going on. and that is why the vote was like it was. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching by calling us at 20266 or ###-#300 or you can send this eight tweet
like us on facebook or follow us on twitter. >> c-span provides live coverage of the u.s. or in key public policy and plans. every weekend booktv, the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local people satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> earlier this month the supreme court entrance court heard arguments on the separation of powers case. it rests on whether congress has the power to pass laws directing the state department to record the birthplace of an american citizen born in jerusalem as one in israel on a u.s. passport. order this infringes upon the president's recognition power. this is one hour.
>> we will hear the argument first. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court. how un-american it is identified in his or her report of god, including the place of birth does not amount to formal recognition by the united states of that designated location's sovereign status. this is the reason why they also offer authorization for those who say they were born in israel which is a legitimate congressional exercise of commerce's power to regulate -- >> suppose that the president and secretary of state put on
the passport is the place of birth on this passport that has been listed as israel, this designation needed no knowledge mentor declaration by the department of state or the president of the united states that jerusalem is in the state of the borders of israel. this degree secretary of state put that on the passport? >> yes, your honor, they could put that on the passport. >> if congress then passed a law saying that that statement had to come off of their, can congress do that? >> yes, justice, they could. there is no restriction upon the initial granting of recognition by the president and by the same token the congress has the
ability afterwards upon deliberation to decide if they disagree with that recognition. in the case that justice kennedy top about -- >> has that ever happened where congress, after the president had declared that it was not recognizing this -- >> yes, justice. in 1898 congress passed a joint resolution for the recognition of the independence of the people of cuba and that ended up recognizing this in cuba. >> you're careful to say that this is not recognition and the court of appeals, i it was said that both parties urge upon us that the power of recognition is involved here and of course the
attorney general take the opposite position that this is recognition and that is why it is void. did you change your position or am i misinterpreting the court of appeals? >> we provided alternatives and options for resolving this issue. the primary position is what is written does not amount to a formal recognition of sovereignty because the language of the statute elf is very narrow. saying that for a person to vote for the narrow purposes of recording a place of birth abroad, that is what this statute provides for and it also does not state that in all circumstances you have to list this is a place of birth. >> it's part of section 214.
and they have been disassociated from the purpose and you are trying to talk about this where congress has to [inaudible] >> justice ginsburg, that is correct that this section of the statute should be reviewed unconstitutionality be determined on its own. but the court should look not at what congress intended by the entire section but i what this section actually did and it gives the individual the choice and does not confer formal recognition. >> you say that.
and i think that that is certainly a reasonable position and you could do this and you say that it doesn't really say anything about recognizing anything. but the solicitor general of the united states after conferring with the state department says that every president has adhered to the position but it should not be used to be determined by a party and it adds by wiring the president to contradict the recognition regarding this and official communications with the section that is unconstitutionally encroaching on core recognition authority. he has a different view and he thinks that it is our policy to recognize jerusalem as the capital, which you apparently agree with and if this does happen, we have some tendency to
adjust. i'm the judge. i'm not a foreign affairs expert. and when he tells me that nar foreign affairs experts in the state department, how can i say that i am right even if i agree with you and they who are in charge of public affairs are wrong and that they make those two statements which certainly sounds plausible. >> two points, the first is that what goes on on the passport is a place of birth is not enough to recognize foreign sovereignty and this can be a perfect example. >> you emphasize this and it seems to me that taiwan and china, there's only one china.
and so it is by no way recognizing the question of recognition in this example. >> that is correct. so what you put on the passport does not -- >> going back to my question which i would like an answer to. i don't think that taiwan is a counter example since the policy of the day department which has a foreign affairs situation, they say that if there is a dispute about the larger power, you can always put in your passport the smaller place of earth like a city. so i don't hear the department saying that this example conflicted with their policy. >> someone eject it to that.
and i'd like to ask more about this question. not whether they objected or didn't object. i'm not interested in that. i'm interested in what we as judges do when the state department and those charged say the other things were not contrary to the recognition policy and that is what they think. >> one last point. >> what am i supposed to do? >> the first point is that what goes on the passports is not for the benefit of formal recognition of policy. this is not entitle one government to bring cases in an out-of-court and what goes on a passport is different. >> i thought your position was that you couldn't care less the
state department thinks that this is going to interfere with our relations with the palestinians and that congress is entitled to do its authorized to do under the constitution, even one that contradicts -- let's assume they can't recognize a country but they can declare war on a country, can't they enact that the state department has decided to recognize and to be friendly with. congress can do that. >> yes, that is correct. >> and you say the same here and the fact that the state department doesn't like the that it makes the palestinians angry as part of this element. >> that is correct. >> we take that vision of explains it, and what do you think of the justice who wrote in 1833 that the exercise of the providence of acknowledging new
nations makes clear is that involves whether a city or region as part of a country because it is an executive function and some argue, as i think we just heard that congress could make that decision as well. but that has not been decided. it concludes that a power so extensive in its reach over foreign relations could not properly be conferred on any other brand-new executive department that would admit any little doubt. and so we are saying that of course you have to have one person deciding such a thing and that has to be the executive that is pretty knowledgeable about the founders intent. >> that is an extreme position to suggest that they would have not only the authorities to recognize a foreign government but also that the state
department says so, that automatically would end the question or any review by any other branch and the state department merely says this [inaudible] >> there is always review was not planning and investor and there is review and a variety of alternative ways by congress and it just may not be the way that you prefer contradicting that it would have any legal course. >> there is review where it's recognized by the authority of congress to review and it was also said that if recognition is made it is composed of unless it can be versed in act of congress for deviating it and even for
there so that if the president refuses to recognize it then congress may not withstand this authority. >> i suppose we could also say hamilton in 1787 trumped in 1830. he said the officer but the recognition was just a trivial formality. >> iraqi also switched before he was in the administration. [inaudible] >> in any case this is not your main point. you're being forced into or you willingly yield himself against the proposition that this is recognition and is invalid, but it's not recognition, it just has an effect on the state
department's desire to make nice with the palestinians in your position is that congress has no compulsion to follow that. assuming that it can't recognize. we don't claim that this is recognition. >> no, we do not claim this is recognition. >> one factual matter that i would like is that i in the record that your application for jerusalem was changed. it was changed and was there an actual official request to change it in your application. >> the initial request was made because a misunderstanding of what the law initially required. >> you never answered my question. did you apply formally to have a change, or did you just take this in the litigation? >> it was subsequently taken in litigation. >> it has been just a request
that israel be put on the passport. >> getting back to another factual question, when [inaudible] is she a birth certificate by the israeli authority? >> guesstimate and the united states recognizes that as a lawful exercise of israeli authority for a child born in jerusalem? >> i believe they do, your honor. >> this is a question that i would ask the solicitor general, but i don't completely understand the position the united states is regarding this over jerusalem. i understand that israel does not exercise full sovereignty over jerusalem, but in this instance with others i can think of, i suspect that the united states recognizes that israel is lawfully exercising attributes of sovereignty over the
territory of jerusalem. and so if americans have committed a crime, with the united states take the position that the israeli government has no lawful authority to prosecute that person for the crime? >> i do not believe or do i believe that they would, that the israeli government has the authority to prosecute that crime. >> if i can ask you if your primary physician is not a recognition statue, can we talk about what it is reign what is the design and the effect of the statute other than something that goes recognition amax. >> the statute was created to give individuals the right to self identify as we choose. >> this is not usually give them the right to self identify in this way. and i ain't that this was the
question of the chief justice and the first argument, that if you were born in northern ireland, you can't get right to say it stay in ireland. for that right if you were born in jerusalem today, you can't get the right to stay in palestine. and it's selective because congress had, it appears to me and consistent with the rest of the statute, they have a real view that this was the self identification and the ability of american citizens to say yes, i was born in jerusalem and that means i was born in israel and that and only that self identification is allowed. >> this was a misguided policy of the state department which enabled individuals born in israel proper for those who were opposed politically to move
israel from the passport and it did not allow those who are worn in jerusalem and to live under the sovereign government of israel wish to put israel on their passport to put them on the passport. >> what about those that want to have palestine as a state of birth. >> correct, justice, because at that point there is before 1948 a palestine. >> palestinians cannot do that. that suggests that they had a view and the view was that jerusalem was properly part of israel. >> that is because the statute, we are dealing with an existing
statute that you put on or remove, they were not advocating the situation by putting in this or other entities. they say to you either put it on her taken off and those are your choices. >> there's one in barcelona, spain. that citizen allowed as a place of birth? >> if they wish to remove the country of birth and they wish to have the smaller entity, yes. >> is that for people who believe in independence? >> is enabling an individual choice to self identify. >> you are consistent on this, that it's not recognition. suppose the state department, and i think that this is recognition, if we defer to the
state department's judgment to the government's executive judgment on that point and they say that this is recognition, and you say that it isn't recognition, if the congress really wants to test its power you can say that it must recognize israel as being a legitimate government of palestine. but it has not been on it since it has not come it seems to me that government argument comes. >> justice, you are correct but the way this balance is power and works as met the executive branch has the right to recognize this and if congress passes legislation that was signed into law, the position of congress comes the map you say this isn't recognition so the ultimate conflict is not for it. where is the government's policy should be given deference as it
comes. >> if it does not amount to recognition, congress has the authority to pass the legislation pursuant to its passport agreement. >> were beyond competing here. i suppose one is that we listen to the state department or matters of foreign affairs, but i suppose another one is that we do not hold an act of congress to be unconstitutional and thereby in effect it. that seems to me to be a draw. the state department says this and congress says is whether it does or not, that we want this person to be able to do this. >> that is correct. if this was signed into law by the president, the law trumps whatever the executive branch may say. >> suppose that congress pass a law and this law said the secretary is date to send an
official letter to all ministers whenever a u.s. citizen was one in jerusalem and that official letter from the secretary of state said that it announces that a new american has been born in israel. would that be constitutional in a. >> excuse me, this would be a law passed. >> it says every time the secretary of state has to send an official letter to every foreign minister saying that a new american has and born in israel. >> yes, that would be constitutional. >> i would be constitutional even though the congress is basically telling the secretary of state to engage in a certain kind of diplomatic communication with other foreign countries? >> the description of a lot you provide is very similar to a
passport and for purposes of communicating that information to the foreign government. >> yes, that was going to be my point. but it was extremely similar to what a passport does. including diplomatic implication. and usually what we say that whatever the congress other foreign affairs policy czar, to belong to the president alone it in that realm we only speak with one voice. and so i guess i sort of have to say that the answer that you gave me that the congress could say here is that diplomatic communication that you have to send to other foreign ministers and it's a little bit shocking. >> recognizing an individual is american citizen facilitates the transfer of the movement of new york citizens across borders.
this passport if police pursuant to this law that would be indistinguishable from all the other ones born anywhere. that passport when not used would be a political statement but identifying an individual by their name and date of birth place, americans with individuals identifying this. >> so we are saying maybe the letter that mr. are to be sent to every foreign head of state would be unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that the passport is because it is primarily for purposes of identification and it's only the letter that makes it something else. >> crack. [talking over each other] >> justice kennedy, do you want us to state an opinion two that this is not a political declaration? >> this is not a local operation. that is correct two i'm not sure
why congress passed it on. >> congress passed it to give these individuals the right to self identify as they choose because individuals in general have that ability to choose. >> i thought it was a federal crime to say they were born in the united states when you're not on an official document. >> so why is it okay for congress to say something that has not happened. to say that someone born in jerusalem is actually born in israel. versus someone born in taiwan thing that i was born in america. they can self identify all they want. >> yes, since 1848 they have
identified over the entire area. >> any president since 1948 recognizes israel's sovereignty over that. >> in a formal sense now, but allowing individuals to recognize that would not be at all statement. >> if i might just go back to the chief justice and what he said. the you agree with. it begins with a passport, with the secretary of state of the united states of america requesting all that it may concern to commit the citizen and law, blah, blah. and all of these are going to be looking at this past. and then we describe this passport it is a letter of introduction in which the issue vouchers for the bear and the rest others to aid the bear and
this is the past or in both and what it says itself and what we have said about it and it's like a letter from the secretary of date and communication. >> it is a communication to facilitate this, not to make public statements about where they were born or where they are from or what country the united states recognizes. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court that lamy get to the heart of the problem here. this is not officially change were formed to change the recognition of the united states but tries to deny the president the ability to do this by forcing executive ranch officials to issue official diplomatic communications that
contradict that. >> what if there were a law. >> pretty much what you decide. >> they say, okay, you can recognize whoever you want. but if you recognize this country and this government, we are going to treat it as if you haven't recognized this government. for all purposes of domestic law, we're going to operate under the assumption that you have recognizes countries. >> i think it would be limits to do that. we think that the recognition power necessarily includes the power to give this recognition. >> so that would be unconstitutional enact. >> for all purposes, yes. >> can you tell me what the taiwan relations act says? magid says the access of the shall not affect the application of the laws. >> no, mr. chief justice, that is. the taiwan relations act was an exercise to implement the president's foreign relations judgment about this.
>> with say the president did not want to recognize taiwan congress passes a law to says we will treat taiwan as if it had been recognized. >> that could raise a serious constitutional question. but it wasn't the case when it was enacted that it's not the case now it's different from the current situation. the fundamental problem with this is that it purports to try and force the executive branch to issue official diplomatic medications that contradict the position of the united states. >> could congress pass a law saying that every passport, it must list place of birth, including country and that for this purpose the country is the nation that issued the birth certificate to that individual? can congress do that?
>> i think that a situation like that should defer to the executive branch judgment of the place of birth listing can have significant diplomatic consequences and we have had policies in place for decades the line this with our official recognition policy and the reason that we do that is because foreign sovereigns look to these medications as indicative of where we stand. >> if it is within the power of congress, what difference does it make? whether it antagonizes foreign countries? >> there are certain things that are within the power that wouldn't raise this problem, of course, like a trade embargo. >> this may be one of them. so when it upsets foreign relations, it doesn't prove anything. >> the critical point is that what this statute does that the
other ones don't do is that it wears the executive branch and the president himself and the executive branch itself to communicate a message that contradicts this and the united states, undermining the president credibility and preventing him from being able to speak with one voice. >> so if you have a disclaimer of the kind that i explained to the conditionals council, she said that that would be perfectly lawful for you to stay. is it not an indication that israel is over jerusalem? would not solve the problem? >> it doesn't solve the problem because it is the credibility and it undermines the credibility of the president because when we think about what's actually saying in this context is that yes, we are issuing thousands of passports identifying persons being born in israel and the united states requires that pay no attention to it because it doesn't have
any bearing. >> if it were such a big deal, why is the chief executive trying to sign it to . >> the chief executive issued a signing statement which really was a disclaimer in 2002. president wishes statement said in 2002 at this does not change our official recognition path and we will treat it as advisory. that do not have the act so we should give no weight to the fact that they chief executive signed a law that he now says has a dramatic situation and has deleterious effects on american foreign policy? >> does that have any consequence at all remap. >> i think that the fact that when the president signed the law into place, it violated the powers and it doesn't have any effect. >> i'm not suggesting that it does. but it does go to the credibility this could have
effects on american foreign-policy. >> i think the credibility of this has been proven by history with all due respect. even though president bush issued that statement and said it didn't change the policy of the united states because they were treating it as advisory and the consequences that ensued in the middle east in october 2002 where that there were mass demonstrations, thousands of people in the street, the parliament met and voted for the first time declared jerusalem the capital of the palestinian state, no longer for bearing on that issue. if you look at this -- >> that's partly because the executive branch made a big deal out of it. and they say that this is unconstitutional and they easily could have said that this is no big deal and move on and they are proving that by signing it. and over this course and has
been mitigated as a self-fulfilling prophecy that is going to be such a huge deal. >> with all due respect i think that on this question if you're asking me, this is a place where the court should a court reference to the judgments of the department in particular. if they had thought that it could be solved by minimizing this effect, certainly they would have followed that. >> they are asking the government to lie. >> that is exactly what you're saying that the government executive department should not do. >> i think the problem is that it executive made a considered judgment in 2002 this could not sensibly be handled this way. >> or if it just says disputed.
>> i gather that they wouldn't be lying but telling the truth. >> well, i don't know. it would have the effect of identifying the past passport. but beyond that, it isn't disputed of the united states. it's a matter of the government of the united states. >> well, commerce is not saying under my hypothetical this is israel. it's saying that this could have a dispute about it, which i could say this is true the statement you can make. >> there's a dispute among the parties of the region and i think the whole premise is of the petition argument here is that within the government of the united states there is not a dispute over the recognition. >> can you help me with this as to how we should approach it generally, that is to say that i can think what instances where the similar statute is serving
nothing but administrative matters where the passport should be read. and i ink it can cause a lot of trouble in certain instances and i can think of instances like this one and i think it can be easily replicated with this controversy with israel. in our imagination with similar controversy in the ukraine where we make an agreement with russia and something similar comes up and remember that they once invaded the northern part of iran. and all around the world there could be similar problems and it's debatable what this actually means or how they will be taken by others and what others will think that they mean. so how do we that know little about it determine that we should stay out of it and let the president and the constitution have that power or
some think that we should. what in your mind is the right standard? >> i think the lesson we were hitting at the constitutionality and the attitude is excepted. but in doing so, we believe it's quite important that the executive branch to difference on what you have identified and this includes a very rare passport statue like this one. this includes recognition into the passports. >> if we agree with the petitioner we do not have to agree with the constitutional question whether the president has exclusive power over recognition. if we agree with you, we have to grapple with the question. so maybe want to talk about it. >> i am delighted to talk about it, and before i do let me address that.
i don't think you necessarily have to address a question and here's why. i think that given this position but it does not change recognition in the united states and that is a given that the position, that we're not recognizing the nations of sovereignty until the parties work it out and that includes section 214, it forces the executive branch to engage in diplomatic communications and contradict our official recognition position. >> and if it does the argument is going to be contradicting it and congress is making its own detriment about the recognition and you have to confront that
smith in the united states. >> this is true justice sotomayor in the question if it is necessary congress actually asked the comptroller to study that there were studies made in the conclusion is you can find in the current version of the foreign affairs manual that you have to have it for two reasons. first, very often nations require that to travel to their nation. and sex and law-enforcement and counterterrorism officials were concerned they would be less effective in their efforts with you would remove the place of birth. so what exactly is the position of the executive regarding israel's exercise of sovereign power in jerusalem? is it the case it is the position that israel cannot
lawfully exercise any sovereign powers within jerusalem? >> we recognize as a practical matter israel over west jerusalem. with the rest is more complicated it could be a practical matter because i don't know the answer, it might well be as a practical matter we would accept it as evidence of person but it. >> it must have for the passport would not have been issued. >> if that you had to provide a burst certificate. >> side of think anyone can infer their recognition policy from that. and to issue passports or crimea then identify russia as the country of birth.
calcareous obvious implication for the foreign policy position and it would contradict it in a way that could be deleterious. >> if there is another country not united states and congress passes a law. they should not recognize country a. >> if this statues' said they cannot be printed because the united states does not recognize it? >> but in response we say those that are now printed in country ab country be? >> that would be harder case because his night to implicate the presence to the recognition power.
>> i thought the argument was the president has the exclusive right? >> know he has the right to give effect and congress cannot try to demand the executive branch to act in a manner that contradicts the president's recognition because he was giving effect to that and to go back to your question it is the exclusive power land after all it is not lawmaking but the executive function and therefore to beaks acted to sign for the executive. >> with respect to the executive functions around recognition excuse me when
the framers wanted the constitution to play a role it is prescribed. article to gives the role for ambassadors man for treaties there is nothing like give some of congress a senate with respect to decisions. >> congress has the authority to require identification and passports. with that identification and the effect of the argument is unconstitutional it affects their recognition and power and in some way? >> the position and is
narrow menu just have to decide and the government's favor what the congress cannot do is use the authority and passed to regulate passports. but i cannot use that authority to command the executive branch to issue diplomatic come -- that it contradicts the position of. >> is seen as that it furthers your position. london to recognize israel has sovereign jurisdiction. >> you make your case. 11 -- but then need to make
that statement of that diplomatic interest. >> the very needed to make a statement caused the credibility of our position in into question. >> that is like the signing statements what jefferson suggested. that is the point it was in the nature of a disclaimer and did not prevent the damage of the credibility to the united states. >> so she should put that on the passport but she also said for them to pass a law that does not have to be put
on the passport. but congress could pass that law. >> is the implication of the argument. >> but that lot is not in front of us. >> but it upholds the constitutionality that congress could prevent a disclaimer not just israel but jerusalem. but those are serious interferences. >> so what you are saying is congress cannot compel speech by the president with respect to foreign relations? >> i would put a little more
narrowly congress cannot compel diplomatic communications on a matter of recognition. that is the question before the court in this case. >> if i pick up the passport and says place of birth of israel do i know whether they were born in jerusalem? so how does it advertised to the world that the president is contradicting himself? we just know the person is born in israel it could be anywhere. >> their world those we will issue thousands of passports to people born in jerusalem identifying born in israel and we will be doing that because of the congress of the united states required it.
but it is not contained in the passport itself. , this piece of legislation advertise is to the world view are compelling the uh of president to say he was born in jerusalem to cannot tell that. >> but he is telling them thousands of times of the recognition position of the united states is true they will not know unless they ask for a place of birth information but they will know but foreign sovereign san the parties of the region will though that thousands of times the executive branch issues passports that contradict our official recognition position.
>> when i travel abroad and come back to the united states or go to a foreign country do we have forms and require you to identify the city? >> i am not aware that they do i am not aware of that. >> some of them do. >> they may well but the essential problem what senator landrieu does this tells the executive to communicate the message that contradicts our position and to undermine the president's credibility as our sole spokesman and there is not an issue on which the credibility could be more important. the status of jerusalem is the most polished tile diplomatic issue this nation has faced for decades going
all the way back to president truman. the fact is the parties in the region and people around the world scrutinize every word that comes out of the united states government and every action the government takes if we can continue to be trusted as an honest broker who can stand apart from this conflict. there is no doubt a section 214b when enacted has serious adverse effect calling a credibility into question just to get the state department communique look at the extemporaneous press accounts at that time. and it seems with free were required to implement this to mitigate the problem, it is quite important for this
court to understand there is a serious risk it harms our credibility on this issue. >> why would that be so? no matter how this court decides every base knows the president's position for what congress thought when it passed the legislation. whatever we do will not be changed and our decision is not based on any view we have weather jerusalem should be regarded as part of israel or the capital, so why is there any effect on foreign policy except those that misunderstand the situation? because they don't understand or exploit it? >> i have two points to make about that. is not a misperception it is inaccurate perception if you look at 214 as a whole not
just senator landrieu it tries, the executive branch to take as series of steps that no region would take if it did not recognize the sovereignty of israel or jerusalem. >> so nothing we do will change what congress lot. >> and it did give rise to very serious problems the difference between then and now with is not just one branch of the united states government but to bridges. but it will be enforced and the consequence of those together with the credibility of the president
on the fundamental question where it stands. to call into doubt foreign governments will not be able to have complete confidence of the position of the president is in fact, the position of the united states. that is exactly why section 214 violates the separation of powers even if you conclude congress could have residual power which we disagree with. the official position of united states we don't recognize any nation's sovereign over jerusalem and tel they worked that out of their own. what this statute does is in force to undermine the credibility of the president's ability to maintain that diplomatic position as we move forward. thank you.
>> you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you your honor. a couple of points justice sotomayor it is not requesting the government lot i on of passport it is just a practical reality. >> know which is not. is the place of birth if you say israel you believe that person was born in israel. >> but seven years prior to the passage of this legislation they pass the jerusalem embassy act and usx and referred to in the footnote that the embassy be moved to jerusalem. >> and there was no waiver provided and every president has exercised the waiver. >> so there is a disagreement. >> we the united states are being asked to put on the passport that you believe
the place of birth of this individual is israel. the executive has said no that we think it is jerusalem. >> but the speech of the individual. >> but it is not then issuing a the passport it is the government. is says it is a diplomatic exchange. >> but when that comes to the gaza strip for west bank they are allowing that speech. >> i take it you think congress passed the identical statute for a child born somewhere else is israel? >> correct. >> we are providing to alternative arguments saying this does not amount to recognition or if the court decides to reach the separation of powers to view this to implicates at this
point the law passed would trump the president allowing the state department of the expert foreign relations to advocates of function to turn the president into an autocrat. we suggest it is said narrative recognition power into executive agreements. that is not the exclusive authorization and the agreements entered into cannot contradict to congress. with the international response to this what is described by the solicitor general is grossly exaggerated. the net is states department could be clearer it does not change united states policy
and because the passports are indistinguishable for those born elsewhere so it could have impact over time particularly the united states makes that statement is a non issue. >> is the unfortunate week to make the it is no big deal argument. history suggests everything is a big deal with the status of jerusalem. right now it is a tinderbox because of issues about the status of access to a whole lee site there. so everything matters, doesn't it? >> it is a sensitive issue. but to suggest what goes on the passport as a place of birth would implicate is no
back and taught me. my instructor of basic flying was lt. capt. leonard sexton at a fort worth texas. he came back and told me how to fly and how to do combat fighting cross-country and those men came back and talk to us well. my other claim to fame is those who are interested in flying after 20 hours they give a test. is for you to prove that you learned what your instructor is supposed to have taught you. my first check ride is with
we know that. we don't have to shop for food because refrigerator's key food longer. cell phones or computers or televisions require electrical power to allow was to lead more productive lives in the modern world. it is necessary medicine and plasma of be kept cool so they don't lose there potency. is an unfortunate and absolutely necessary more than half a billion africans live without electricity. perhaps a great irony is africa has more capacity to join the rest of the world for modern technology and approximately 30 percent of the discoveries are in sub-saharan africa but yet currently at only
290 million have access to electricity and the total number of lacking such access continues to rise. bioenergy wood and charcoal is a major source of fuel. hydropower is 20% but less than 10 percent of the estimated potential has been utilized. the hearing will examine the current approach of the government programs such as power africa as well as private international energy projects. and rethink our witnesses i will introduce but with there of leadership that is increasingly a reality. we introduced bill electrified africana act. it takes from increased
production as you go past the house-- later the administration announced the power african initiative with a 7.$18 billion to build the capacity of the power sector. there is the discovery in there the importers of energy and how the remains unfulfilled. this has economic progress and social development for the people of africa even now one country south africa accounts for the two-thirds of the electricity
generation to produce less than 10 percent of the energy produced in the united states. the people across the continent are forced to purchase charcoal or coal while putting women in dangerous situations too far from home. even when there safely brought back home can trip -- interpolation and contributes to sickness or death. it cannot continue. even with 13 percent of the population only 4 percent of the energy demand is from their situation but that is changing according tuesday iea since 2000 south africa has seen rapid growth and a rise of energy use by a 45%. that is a good trend. for the rise to be realized
the rates must match growing demand for power. and though so phones must be charged and consumer goods and beverage cans are increasing willing to except the blackout and power surges that make life so difficult for so long. this is not have to be there lot in life to your about the powers that are available to them like everybody else. during the colonial period they were limited with industrialization but that period is long past. is the reason they are behind the of our generation but today it is inadequate or unrealistic with a lack of finance, under investment
and when financing is available the disconnect florida power grade high cost of energy. these obstacles can and must be overcome to require additional international collaboration this partnership in the will of government with their citizens. we will not get to the point is necessary over night but we will if we take serious measures now. with regular electricity students can steady under electrical light and use computers to advance studies and homemakers can keep food fresher to stretch the household's income further and hospitals and the chief of staff wve